Talk:Porsche 911 (930)

Untitled
For the old discussion please see Talk:Porsche 930/Archive1 or Talk:Porsche 930/Archive2 Xaosflux 22:04, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

Content Dispute about third picture
I am glad Waldo and me have resolved the personal issue about this. Now I have inserted a blank spot in the article so Waldo does not think I am trying to impose the third picture with the "best sports car" quote over his car. I suggest a reasonable discussion how to fill that spot:

1. The dark green "Waldo car" has the "problem" that it has been modified with various fiberglass body moldings: Please compare to factoy spec car:. Conversions are done quite often with any kind of 911. The reason is that the 911 body hasn't changed significantly over 30 years and it is possible to convert any 911 to any other 911 between 1964 and 1998. However: Waldo's car has not been restored to 930-looks and there is no 930 in this world which ever left the factory that way. It is a 911 with body conversions. Waldo's conversions are not 930-specific and could as well be claimed to be a 965 or 964 RS or a "Phantasy-Porsche" like cars in "2 fast 2 fourious". This is a factory-spec 965 Turbo S, please take a look at it: http://andrewnewbury.tripod.com/index_files/965TurboS_tm.jpg See? Wlado's car looks rather like this one than a 930. Waldo's car even has 18 inch wheels, which Porsche never allowed on a 930 because of the structural integrity of the suspension and body. 18 inch wheels were offered on the 965 Turbo S of 1991 the first time! Please check out for yourself with Porsche for example. The differences among 911s are subtle from outside, but make very big differences, as a 965 and a 930 share almost no identical parts except a few body panels.

2. I strongly suggest we remain with factory specific cars and leave out the aspect of modified and converted 911s in this rather short encyclopedia. Therefore why not adding a rear view picture showing the wide arches and the Whale Tail, if there has got to be a third picture? There are plenty of good samples available from the Porsche historical archive and I have easy access to such. I was suggesting:, but I am happy with any other. Also one restored by Waldo is fine - if restored to factory specifications.

3. If modified must prevail, I suggest we either stay with the modifications offered under the factory programm or get to cars much better known among Porsche enthusiasts. Ruf cars are highly renowned and again I am happy to find pictures a Ruf 930 as I have access, too. If Waldo insists on the dark green one I would like to learn about Waldos company name and the number of cars converted this style, first.

4. I am not some 14 year old jerk. I own a Porsche 911 for myself and a Alfa Romeo Spider and it is no coincidence that I offer Waldo tours in Zuffenhausen or Pfaffenhausen. Check out what these two towns are about.

5. I am doing this because I am a enthusiast and think Wikipedia is great and wish to contribute to make this article as excellent as possible.

Waldo, please consider this and post what you think. Thanks. This is a discussion among equals and I think it is wise to leave the spot blank until this is resolved. 84.160.133.90 09:57, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

84.160.133.90: Here is what I think. This article is titled "Porsche 930". The pictures that I submitted ( a red 930 slantnose and a green 930 Turbo Carrera ) are both Porsches, and both 930's. The both were created at the Porsche factory as true '930' vehicles. The VIN numbers prove my exact point. Concerning the 'slantnose' this is a different 930 version that Porsche created and sold. 930's come in obvious different models and flavor. This article is not about “Bone stock Porsche 930's” this article is about “Porsche 930's”. The green car is a picture of a restoration that I did for a Porsche 930 owner, which is the specimen picture and it is a 1976 930 Turbo Carrera. It has various Porsche designed fiberglass parts that were added. The picture represents a Porsche 930 Turbo Carrera and that fact cannot be denied. Now if this article is about “bone stock Porsche 930's” then I suggest we rename it as such and create a 2nd article entitled “Porsche 930's” which would ultimately prove futile because they would subsequently merged and we would wind up, right here with this (in my opinion) unnecessary discussion. I say this: the more pictures the better because it allows the reader to get a “real world” view of the Porsche 930. Attend any Porsche show and you will see many, many types of Porsche 930's; some bone stock, some mildly and radically modified. As long as the vehicle is a Porsche 930, born from the factory, then I frankly don't see any issue and say re-post the picture (as it has been for many months before it’s untimely removal) and even add more. Also, please create a user ID and start making changes as a known wiki editor/user. It's boring to respond to an IP address - that's what name resolution is for ;) 0waldo 14:34, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Here are some images to prove the restoration of Porsche 930 picture in question:



Thanks Waldo for joining me on the substance!

1. I absolutely concur with you on the slantnose. That's why this picture was never touched by me! The slantnose is in a fact a factory-modified 930. They pulled those cars out of the production line, reshaped the fenders (hand craft), and put it back into production line. Those cars were marked with a M-code (option: slantnose) and sold 948 times.

2. As stated, it is absolutely fine with me to include 930s modified by third parties, even though this is a Porsche article. There are dozens of companies offering to modify 930s and other Porsches: Ruf, Gemballa (about 50 km away from me; Gemballa/H&R-springs are installed on my car), TechArt, Cartronic, Folger, Rieger, Albert, etc. Usually these companies do (must) not use the Porsche badge. Don't get me wrong: I am a big fan of some of these modified cars and believe me, I have personal contacts making clear that the persons running these companies are very big enthusiasts.

Please tell us about the origin of the kit you used on the green 930 or tell us your company name, if this kit is your work, indeed! I am sure we get to agree on the modified aspect! In meantime, I will find out on how to get a user name. Call me 'Felix' until I have resolved this. 84.160.133.90 15:33, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Proposal done. I hope we're over with this now. You will find an e-mail adress in my user profile. Best regards 1304Felix 16:03, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Felix, nice to know you but I could not find any user information on 1304Felix. Please create yourself a user profile and provide some interesting information about yourself and share it with the audience if you wish. Thank you for your constructive editing you appear very well versed in your Porsche technical expertise. 0waldo 17:46, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

More on the picture
That 3rd picture appears to be of a 964, not a 930. Either that or it's a 930 with a 964 body on it, which I've heard of being done. I think whoever posted the picture should change it's caption to reflect why the vehicle looks so much newer than the other.

Well actually it's a Hummer H4 that has been specially modified to look like a 964. 0waldo 14:01, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Ha!

I am fine with making the caption more specific. Why don't you post an suggestion and Waldo can review, if he likes? 1304Felix 08:53, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Content Dispute about "Contemporary Competitiors" in the info box
The Corvette ZR-1 is not a *contemparary* competitor to the 930, as it was released later to the market (it is to a 965 and 993). There is practically no overlap in time. The Ferrari 308 is rather a counterpart to a naturally-aspirated 911 Carrera 3.2. In particular with regards to performance, there was not any Ferrari or Lamborghini equalling the acceleration of a 930 in 1975, not even the 12-cylinder versions. The Porsche 928 IS a contemproray competitor. I STRONGLY suggest taking out the amendments made (and the reference to the Ferrari 308 in the text). 1304Felix 09:09, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

I don't have a problem with the reference to the 308 within the text being modifed, but I don't think it should be taken out of the box as a listed competitor. It was a more expensive car than the standard 911, and in terms of pricepoint was most certainly a competitor to the 930. As far as the ZR-1 is concerned, Chevrolet launched the car in 1989 as a 1990 model, so it's a hard point for me. There were certainly 930s still avaiable for purchase in late '89 when the ZR-1 was released but it's hard to say how many buyers were cross-shopping both vehicles, if there's a consensus that it should be removed from the box, so be it. I do have a problem with listing the 928 as a competitor though, it was another Porsche product and a high performance GT car, not a sports car, the two models weren't meant to overlap one another, and didn't. Ernst Fuhrman may have been operating under the delusion that the 928 was going to replace the 911, but the two cars were never marketed as competitors or rivals. I don't see a need for any other revisions to be made to the info box, personally.


 * None of the ZR-1s produced in 1989 were sold to the public.
 * The 308/328 were priced lower than a 911 Turbo as was their performance. It is fine with me to keep them in, however (after we have the Corvette which was slower and cheaper by far in the 70ies/80ies).
 * The 928 WAS a competitor to the 930, as both were similar in power and price. Remember, the 930 was marketed as a gran turismo from the beginning and there were other hard-core versions like the low-volume Carrera RS 3.0. We are drawing thin lines between "sports car" / "gran turismo" / "high performance GT". Porsche's model stragedy is a little bit difficult to overlook sometimes, but no doubt the 928 was originally intended as a substitute for the 911 and there is enough overlap justifying the 928 in the list. Of course Porsche did not market both models as competitors (how should they!, intrabrand-competition is not something extraterrestrial), but both were preceived so in the press and among customers. (BTW which 928 version have you driven?) 1304Felix 13:23, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

I've driven a '90 model year 928 as well as an '85 model year 930 and a 911 SC Targa (I think it was an '83 but it was owned by a family friend, so I'd have to ask to be sure). The 930 and the 928 may have been similar in price but were certainly distinct otherwise, at least based on the vintage ads I've seen and my experience driving them. Saying that they were competitive with one another is a little like saying that the GTI was meant to steal sales from the A3 or that the new 3.8 litre Passat 4Motion was meant to compete with the A6. As similar as they may be, they aren't being cross-shopped, IMO.

Ralph Nader
"where Ralph Nader had made his name slandering the rear engine-rear wheel drive layout of the Chevrolet Corvair"

Yeah, I don't know about that line. "Slander" has a specific legal meaning, of course, but its use here seems to introduce a bit of POV bias, I think. Nader didn't _slander_ that layout; he claimed it to be unsafe. Whether that is slander or not depends on whether you think his claims were accurate, and a factual basis for the accuracy of those claims isn't provided in this article.

Very minor point, to be sure, but I trust nobody will mind if I edit it accordingly?

S. Ugarte (talk) 16:37, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

content dispute - g50 -based transmission only available for '89 model year
Hi, new to wikipedia, would like to edit but figure I should ask first.

A recent edit claims 5 speed g50 based transmission was available in '87. The g50 was introduced for 3.2 carerra for '87, which may be the source of the confusion. I've 3 sources that claim it was only available on 930 for '89 model year (one is factory manual)

I suggest instead:

From '75 until '88 the 930 shipped with the aluminum type 930 four speed transmission. At the time Porsche claimed the use of the new 4 speed transmission was to a) handle the extra torque of the turbo engine, b) to save space and c) because 5 gears weren't needed due to the extra torque of the turbo.

'75-76 930 shipped with 930/30 transmission with 4:1 final drive and 930/32 available for cars with 16" wheels (4.222:1 final drive). 16" wheels and 930 transmission with 4.222:1 became standard in '77. In '89 the 930 came with a variant of the 5 speed g50 tranmission that had been used in the 3.2 carerra starting in '87. The '89 g50-based 930 tranmission had final drive of 3.444:1.

Cheers, Christoffersen (talk) 06:43, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

"Porsche's top-of-the-range model for its entire production duration"
nopp... the 959 was. the proper sentence should be: "911's top-of-the-range model for"... etc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.250.130.61 (talk) 18:59, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I came here to make exactly the same point! It should be amended to either "911 range" or "full production" as the 959 was a limited run. d a n n o  18:23, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Done. Next time be bold and make the edit :) Bjmullan (talk) 20:26, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress
There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Porsche which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 09:01, 26 October 2023 (UTC)